8/13/2019 Canon 15 Seares vs Alzate

1/5

Adm. Case No. 9058 : November 14, 2012

ROBERT VICTOR G. EARE, !R.,Complainant, v.ATT". ANIATA #I$#I$A V. GON%A#E&A#%ATE,Respondent.

' E C I I O N

BERA(IN, J.:

Atty. Saniata Liwliwa V. Gonzales-Alzate is charged with incompetence and professional negligence,and a violation of the prohibition against representing conflicting interests. Complainant obert VictorG. Seares, !r. is her former client.

Seares, !r. alleges that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate was his legal co"nsel when he ran for the position of#"nicipal #ayor of $olores, Abra in the #ay %&&' elections( that after he lost by a )&-vote margin toAlbert *. G"zman, she filed in his behalf a +etition f rotest Ad Ca"telam+/0r12llin the egional 3rialCo"rt 43C5 in 6ang"ed, Abra( that the petition was dismissed for being +fatally defective(+%/0r12llthatseveral months later, she insisted on filing a +etition of rotest+ in the 3C, b"t the petition was alsodismissed on the gro"nd that it was already time-barred, and on the f"rther gro"nd of for"m shopping

beca"se the certification against for"m shopping was false( that the 3C declared her as+professionally negligent(+7/0r12llthat he again ran for #"nicipal #ayor of $olores, Abra in the #ay %&&elections, and won( that he later learned that his political opponents retained her as theirco"nsel(8/0r12llthat with him barely two months in office, one Carlito 3"r9"eza charged him with ab"se ofa"thority, oppression and grave miscond"ct in the Sangg"niang anlalawigan of Abra()/0r12llthat sherepresented 3"r9"eza as co"nsel(:/0r12lland that she intentionally made false and h"rtf"l statements in thememorand"m she prepared in that administrative case in order to attac; him.'/0r12ll

Seares, !r. asserts that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate thereby violated Canon ), Canon ' and Canon < ofthe Code of rofessional esponsibility for negligently handling his election protest, for prosec"tinghim, her former client, and for "ttering false and h"rtf"l allegations against him. =ence, he prays thatshe sho"ld be disbarred.

>n her comment,ss"es

3o be determined are the following iss"es, namely

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt1http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt1http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt2http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt2http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt3http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt3http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt4http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt4http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt5http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt5http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt6http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt6http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt7http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt7http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt8http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt8http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt12http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt12http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt13http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt13http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt14http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt14http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt15http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt15http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt16http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt16http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt1http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt2http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt3http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt4http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt5http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt6http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt7http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt8http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt12http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt13http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt14http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt15http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt16

8/13/2019 Canon 15 Seares vs Alzate

2/5

4a5 Das Atty. Gonzales-Alzate g"ilty of professional negligence and incompetence in her handling ofSeares, !r.s electoral protest in the 3CE

4b5 $id Atty. Gonzales-Alzate violate the prohibition against representing conflicting interests whenshe assisted 3"r9"eza in his administrative case against Seares, !r., her former clientE

"ling

3he severity of disbarment or s"spension proceedings as the penalty for an attorneys miscond"ct hasalways moved the Co"rt to treat the complaint with "tmost ca"tion and deliberate circ"mspection. Dehave done so beca"se we m"st wield the power to disbar or s"spend on the preservative rather thanon the vindictive principle,'/0r12llconformably with o"r thin;ing that disbarment or s"spension will becondign and appropriate only when there is a clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof of miscond"ctserio"sly affecting the professional standing and ethics of respondent attorney as an officer of theCo"rt and as a member of the 6ar.5 in 6ang"ed, Abra shows that the tr"eca"se of the dismissal of Seares, !r.s +etition For rotest Ad Ca"telam+ was its premat"rity in light ofthe pendency in the Commission on lections of his +etition to S"spend Canvass androclamation.+77/0r12ll3he 3C cogently held that +4t5he primary obective of this petition is to pray for the

iss"ance of a reliminary reca"tion rder BBB 4b"t5 a prayer for the iss"ance of the protection ofballot boBes, 6oo;s and Lists of Voters and other election paraphernalia in the recently concl"dedelections is well within the power of the Commission on lections.+78/0r12llDe see no trace of professionalnegligence or incompetence on the part of Atty. Gonzales-Alzate in her handling of Seares, !r.sprotest, especially beca"se she even filed in his behalf a +#otion for econsideration,+7)/0r12lla +Commenton the Co"rts $ismissal of the rotest Ad Ca"telam+7:/0r12lland a +#otion to Dithdraw Cash$eposit.+7'/0r12ll6esides, her eBplanation that it was Seares, !r. himself who decided not to p"rs"e theappeal and who instead re9"ested her to move for the withdrawal of his cash deposit was verypla"sible.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt17http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt17http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt18http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt18http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt19http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt19http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt20http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt20http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt21http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt21http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt22http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt22http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt23http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt23http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt24http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt24http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt25http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt25http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt26http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt26http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt27http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt27http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt28http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt28http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt29http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt29http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt30http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt30http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt31http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt31http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt32http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt32http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt33http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt33http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt34http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt34http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt35http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt35http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt36http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt36http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt37http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt37http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt17http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt18http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt19http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt20http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt21http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt22http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt23http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt24http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt25http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt26http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt27http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt28http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt29http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt30http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt31http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt32http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt33http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt34http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt35http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt36http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt37

8/13/2019 Canon 15 Seares vs Alzate

3/5

Also, we cannot find Atty. Gonzales-Alzate professionally negligent in respect of the filing and event"aldismissal of the s"bse9"ent +etition for rotest.+ 3he verification and certification against for"mshopping attached to the petition contained handwritten s"perimpositions by Atty. Gonzales-Alzate,b"t s"ch s"perimpositions were apparently made only to reflect the corrections of the dates ofs"bscription and the notarial doc"ment n"mber and doc;et n"mber for the verification andcertification. >f that was all there was to the s"perimpositions, then there was nothing to s"pport thetrial "dges observation that the +c"t and paste+ method in preparing the verification and certification

for non-for"m shopping constit"ted +professional negligence+ that proved fatal to her clientsprotest.7>.

Charge of representingconflicting interests is bereft of merit

Seares, !r. neBt charges Gonzales-Alzate with violating Canon ) of the Code of rofessionalesponsibility for s"pposedly representing conflicting interests when she too; on the administrativecomplaint that 3"r9"eza bro"ght against Seares, !r.

3he charge of Seares, !r. is bereft of merit.

Canon ) of the Code of rofessional esponsibility prohibits an attorney from representing a party ina controversy that is either directly or indirectly related to the s"bect matter of a previo"s litigationinvolving another client. elevantly, "le ).&, "le).&% and "le).&7 providechanroblesvirt"allawlibrary

"le ).&A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as practicablewhether the matter wo"ld involve a conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shallforthwith inform the prospective client.

"le ).&%A lawyer shall be bo"nd by the r"le on privilege comm"nication in respect of mattersdisclosed to him by a prospective client.

"le ).&7A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests eBcept by written consent of all concernedgiven after a f"ll disclos"re of the facts.

Atty. Gonzales-Alzates legal representation of 3"r9"eza neither res"lted in her betrayal of the fidelityand loyalty she owed to Seares, !r. as his former attorney, nor invited the s"spicion of "nfaithf"lness

or do"ble dealing while she was performing her d"ties as an attorney.7@/0r12llepresenting conflictinginterests wo"ld occ"r only where the attorneys new engagement wo"ld re9"ire her to "se against aformer client any confidential information gained from the previo"s professional relation.8&/0r12ll3heprohibition did not cover a sit"ation where the s"bect matter of the present engagement was totally"nrelated to the previo"s engagement of the attorney.8/0r12ll3o constit"te the violation, the attorneysho"ld be shown to intentionally "se against the former client the confidential information ac9"ired byher d"ring the previo"s employment.8%/0r12ll6"t a mere allegation of professional miscond"ct wo"ld nots"ffice to establish the charge, beca"se acc"sation was not synonymo"s with g"ilt.87/0r12ll

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt38http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt38http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt40http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt40http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt43http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt43http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt38http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt40http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt43

8/13/2019 Canon 15 Seares vs Alzate

4/5

8/13/2019 Canon 15 Seares vs Alzate

5/5

>n $e Leon v. Castelo,8'/0r12llwe "nderscored the need to shield attorneys as officers of the Co"rt from themindless assa"lts intended to veB or harass them in their performance of d"ty, stating chanroblesvirt"allawlibrary

According to !"stice Cardozo, +BBB the fair fame of a lawyer, however innocent of wrong, is at themercy of the tong"e of ignorance or malice. ep"tation in s"ch a calling is a plant of tender growth,and its bloom, once lost, is not easily restored.+

A lawyers rep"tation is, indeed, a very fragile obect. 3he Co"rt, whose officer every lawyer is, m"stshield s"ch fragility from mindless assa"lt by the "nscr"p"lo"s and the malicio"s. >t can do so, firstly,by 9"ic;ly c"tting down any patently frivolo"s complaint against a lawyer( and, secondly, bydemanding good faith from whoever brings any acc"sation of "nethical cond"ct. A 6ar that is ins"latedfrom intimidation and harassment is enco"raged to be co"rageo"s and fearless, which can then bestcontrib"te to the efficient delivery and proper administration of "stice.8n Lim v. Antonio,8@/0r12llwe cens"red the complainant beca"se revenge and bad faith had motivated himinto filing a baseless complaint against an attorney, stressingchanroblesvirt"allawlibrary

3he dignity and honor of the profession re9"ire that acts "nworthy of membership in the bar sho"ld bevisited with the appropriate penalty. 3he charge against respondent is of a serio"s character. >f in factthere was s"ch a violation of the law as charged, he sho"ld be d"ly penalized. >t is 9"ite clear,however, that the complaint is "nfo"nded. >t was the prod"ct of ill-will, the desire of complainant toavenge himself. >t certainly was not made in good faith. >f it were so, its dismissal wo"ld haves"fficed. 3o repeat, s"ch is not the case. As the eport made clear, the complaint arose from a feelingof resentment, even of hate. 3o allow complainant to trifle with the Co"rt, to ma;e "se of the "dicialprocess as an instr"ment of retaliation, wo"ld be a reflection on the r"le of law. =e sho"ld be held tostrict acco"ntability, considering that this is his second attempt. S"ch st"bbornness, compo"nds thegravity of his offense. =e appears to be incorrigible. At the very least, therefore, he sho"ld becens"red.)&/0r12ll

De have often demonstrated o"r gen"ine concern for the members of the 6ar, especially those whostand before o"r co"rts as ethical advocates of their clients ca"ses. De definitely do not tolerate"nwarranted and malicio"s assa"lts against their honor and rep"tation. 3he Co"rt iss"ed a sternwarning to the complainant attorney in $ela Victoria v. rig-#aloloy-on)/0r12llfor filing an "nfo"nded

complaint against a cler; of co"rt, and fo"nd the complainant attorney in contempt of co"rt anddeserving of a %,&&&.&& fine. 6"t a stiffer penalty of ),&&&.&& was imposed on the complainantattorneys in rieto v. Corp"z)%/0r12lland Arnado v. S"arin)7/0r12llbeca"se their complaints against a "dge and aco"rt sheriff, respectively, were fo"nd to be baseless.

Considering the circ"mstances attendant here, the Co"rt deems it s"fficient for now to merelyadmonish Seares, !r., b"t sternly warns him that he shall be dealt with more severely sho"ld hecommit a similar act against a member of the 6ar. /01I1J1Kbl1121Mr/N1Jll1J/Ol1Mbr1Jr

D=F, the Co"rt $>S#>SSS the administrative complaint against Atty. Saniata Liwliwa V.Gonzales-Alzate for "tter lac; of merit( and A$#H>S=S obert Victor G. Seares, !r. for filing themalicio"s complaint, D>3= S3H DAH>HG that a repetition shall be dealt with more severely asindirect contempt of the Co"rt./0r1Jl1J/Ol1Mbr1Jr

O OR'ERE'.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt47http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt47http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt48http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt48http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt49http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt49http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt50http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt50http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt51http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt51http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt52http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt52http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt53http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt53http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt47http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt48http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt49http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt50http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt51http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt52http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012novemberdecisions.php?id=674#fnt53